Running, all-purpose World Cup thread

Indeed. Because head-butting an opponent in the middle of a pressure-filled, intense match is way out of character for Zinedine Zidane. It's a shame that bastard Materazzi was able to provoke this mild-mannered man into his first-ever incident of foolish violence on a soccer field.

 

I don't have to agree that something awful was said.

And even if something awful was said, why the fuck do you do something to get kicked out of the WC final with 10 minutes to go?

What a Bozo.

 

Egads, it'd turn every game into a version of indoor soccer. I might be convinced to allow unlimited subs during throw-ins, goal kicks, corners and stoppages for injuries and "injuries." But I could never support subbing on the fly.

 

I was trying something different b/c as it stands currently, it takes about a full 60 seconds for one sub as they hold up the sign, the outgoing player jogs over, they hug, then the other player jogs in. I want more action, not less.

What would bother me more: Meaningful games slowed down to a crawl because everyone is tired and refuses to run?

Or guys subbing in and out and fresh legs trying to get some offensive runs going?

 

I can see your angle on it.

The local high school athletic association allows unlimited subs on dead balls. The refs do a good job of keeping things moving quickly with the fourth official being in charge of keeping up with who is coming in and who is coming out.

Players who get yellow cards are also automatically sent to the bench. They can check back in on the next dead ball, but that might be a few minutes depending on the quality of play.

 

On unlimited subs...

Part of the reason that soccer is the game is so good is due to the limited subs. The coach does not control the run of play. He selects the players. He trains the players. He puts them in a position that gives his team the best chance to win. He may even have set plays on dead balls or corners, but the players aren't always obligated to go with them.

In short, Larry Brown would have a rough time. If you provide for unlimited subs, what you are doing is applying more influence by the coach.

Your team goes up by a goal, pull your forwards and attacking players and throw in a bunch of defensemen. Now you have 9/10 men behind the ball. Maybe you leave in that one extra forward just in case.

Talk about a game slowed down and dragged out. The game would become a standstill at the midfield.

Now you add in the idea of swapping players on the fly. Let's say the guy runs to the sideline, tag, and the next guy is in. We remove the stoppage of play.

If your team starts moving forward, one of the defensemen runs to the side, slap, a forward comes on and now your attack is bolstered. Then as the other team is countering, that forward comes over and, tag, the defensemen is back in.

It would turn into hockey on grass without the sticks.

I am not opposed to having 3-subs for the first half and are given one more sub in the second half. Any subs not used in the first, carries over. Then you are given an extra sub for each half of overtime.

This way, if the game goes too long, you have the ability to sub out 6-players. This keeps enough fresh legs to challenge the tired ones to make something happen. It also allows for instances like Argentina had, where a sub was needed for a legitimate injury.

 

A months worth of games I just watched (well, really the knockout stage) tells me there has to be something, anything better than what I saw.

A team going up and going into a shell cannot be any worse than what I saw. Not a flame post, just stating that I was VERY disappointed in some of the second half/OT play.

Make it a set amount, make it unlimited. But something other than watching these tired players do nothing for 30-45 minutes.

 

I like the idea of allowing at least one extra substitution per OT. For the most part, these games were brutal to watch once they hit OT, and as Poindexter just wrote, many were bad before they got to OT.

Bottom line, and I know it's been said before, but it's true--teams [and coaches, really] would rather play conservatively and roll the dice on PKs, than actually try to score, probably fail, and leave themselves vulnerable to a counter.

 

Poin, I don't really disagree. As the games wore on, it seemed that some of these players were just dying. OT was almost a pointless exercise for those that went that far.

I just feel like there has to be limit or you end up with a Larry Brown type of coach that starts going on and on about the "right way." You could also end up with some Parcells type sideline general.

The real issue comes with the time of year, Summer, and time of day, middle of it. Nearly all of those players were coming into the tourney after finishing a long winter season and only had about a month to prepare. Then they start playing in the heat of summer in the middle of the day. Additionally, the games are played closer together in the advanced stages.

 

Understand all that. Its going to be brutally hot in SA in four years. The knockout stage was not appointment television, IMO, unless your team was in it.

 

To a degree, this is true. I would say that some of the best games were played by the teams that were big underdogs. England disappointed, while Trinidad and Tobago fought and played hard. The US v Italy was a tough game. Then you have the Dutch which mostly bored teams into submission.